James
It seems surprising that the Americans, less bound as they are by traditional bias than most in the old world, should heed the title given in the Authorized Version where it is clearly opposed to truth like this of our Epistle. Had “General” been applied only to the First of John and to that of Jude, every thoughtful person would have seen it to be true in fact. For the title is no part of the original text and differs in the ancient copies. The δωδεκάφυλον, or whole nationality, of Israel was before the inspired writer's mind, not the church at large as the term Catholic or General supposes. If any were disposed to the notion of a spiritual Israel, “that are in the dispersion” ought to dispel it. One has only to examine or think of the extra-Pauline Epistles to see how absurdly they are designated the Seven Catholic Epistles, though they were from a date early enough to satisfy those who prefer post-apostolic antiquity to scripture.
The Americans are not wrong in preferring “proving” to “proof” in 1:3, as Dean Alford also felt. They do not question the arrangement of 6-8; but is it not simpler and truer to take verse 7 as parenthetical, and 8 as a description of the doubter figuratively set forth in 6, rather than in apposition with “that man” in 7? Did they not feel the importance of the plural form relegated from the text of 13 to margin? God tries faith and patience, He never tempts to lusts, which are from within. So 17 has no notice beyond a return from the Revised Version “boon” to the Authorized Version “gift.” Now we all know that the first of the two words, though properly expressive of the act of giving may be and often is used for a gift or present; but, is it conceivable that we should have the two terms without a distinction other than brought together and differently qualified? Ought we not to allow that “every good giving” is here distinguished from “every perfect gift?” The character of the act good, the result in the thing given perfect, the Father of lights is the source, in contrast with evil in act and result flowing; from self. We need not repeat other remarks on the Revised Version made in April 1882, which do not appear to have presented themselves to our friends.
On 2 we have nothing suggested. It is agreed that they rightly cleave to the Authorized and Revised Versions of 1, and reject the unsatisfactory alternative of Bengel, Calvin, Gataker, or others. So, also, the bringing in of “synagogue” for the more general “assembly” as in the Authorized Version is a sound correction for reasons which may not have occurred to the Committee on either side of the Atlantic. One can understand also the text and margin of 4, though it be questionable if either side be the best rendering of the word 8. But ought they to have passed by the needless introduction of the English indefinite in 12? Nor is “hath” called for in 13. It is more surprising they should consent to “that” faith of the Revisers in 14. Even Dean Alford would regard the Greek article as only that of previous mention. Its emphatic force is quite unnecessary. In 18 the literal sense seen in the Revised margin seems better than their text and as in the Authorized Version, which is substantially Tyndale's. It appears to me that “the” is more forcible than “thy” with “works” and “faith” at the close: “Show me thy faith apart from the works [i.e., produced by it], and I will shew thee by [or from] my works, the faith” [i.e. which produces them], neither carrying the English article without some such paraphrase. See the Revisers' own rendering in 26. The article here means the works proper to faith, the works one has a right to expect from faith. It seems extraordinary that the English Versions at 19 should have deserted the text before their various translators and given what answers only to the Cambridge Greek Test of 1881, as well as the Revisers' margin, no doubt greatly due to the learned Editors' influence. For though the uncials and cursives in general differ greatly in the order of the words, the sense is the same as is represented in the Revised text; and so the mass of ancient versions. The margin has only the Vatican, backed up by Scrivener's a c l m and Theophyl. All other critics justly insert the article, which makes the textual rendering imperative. Very likely ἀργή “barren” in 20 has a claim of superiority over νεκρά dead (which may well have slipped in from the context); but was it not in cautious to support the Revised Version in ignoring even in the margin what cannot be denied to have the great preponderance of ancient evidence? In 23 “friend” of God is much more expressive, as well as more strictly correct, than “the friend.” Again in 24 why be parties to severing μ. “only” from “faith?” The connection with substantives is common and well known. And why “the” Spirit, when our idiom here admits of close adherence to the Greek? The last clause illustrates on the other hand that in Greek the article may be with “faith” if not with “works,” where the Revisers properly enough have it not in English. Indeed with “works” the witnesses very generally insert it, save two great uncials and two cursives. Origen can scarcely be reckoned in; for he makes both “faith” and “works” here to be anarthrous.
3:1 appears to be encumbered rather than helped by the proposed supply “many of you,” as G. Wakefield had suggested long ago; it is sufficiently implied in the phrase itself. This is the sole suggestion from the west. Yet there are delicate questions, especially in 6, while there is little doubt of the critical readings in 3, 6, and 9. Elsewhere the cumbrous rendering of the Committee in 15 has been noticed, which we do not repeat; and it is a grave question whether “in peace” should not be connected with “fruit of righteousness” rather than with “sown” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. G. Wakefield made it qualify “fruit,” as if equivalent to Heb. 12:1111Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12:11).
In 4:4 there is but a marginal explanation suggested of “adulteresses,” “That is, who break your marriage vow to God,” without a word on ch. v. There is no sufficient reason to doubt the soundness of the critical change, which all accept save that Tischendorf strangely connects the word pt. with the sentence before (3), not with 4. But the feminine only and fully expresses the corruption of all who tamper with the world, instead of keeping themselves unspotted from it. In 5 the Americans rightly endorse the double query that divides the verse; but is it by any means sure that the Revisers are right in adopting the transitive form of the verb according to א A B 101. 104. in the latter half? It is precisely a case where the most ancient MSS. are least reliable; for they often interchange η with ι, ο with ω, when the self-same thing is really meant. Of course the resulting difference of sense amounts to little; for according to the great mass of copies, versions, and early citations, it attributes to the Spirit Himself His dwelling in us; according to the favorites of the critics, it means God's causing Him so to dwell, which certainly agrees well with the words that follow. It is of interest to notice the aorists in 7-10, as compared with the presents in 2-6 (excepting of course God's gift of the Spirit), though difficult to express in English. Then in 11 we return to the present, where continuance is meant to be laid down, rather than the urgency of having it done, duration being merged. Strange it seems that the Americans had not a word of question on the omission of the first γαρ “for” in 14. Even Tregelles only brackets the word. On rather less evidence Lachmann omits the second, the presence of which, I presume, led the copyists of אpm B &c. to omit the former. B omits the article before ζ. also, as well as (with P its companion) in the second clause. In 14 the readings from itacism are confusing enough. Nevertheless, in spite of B P &c. θελήση “shall have willed” is better than θελή or ει, and if we are to read ο (not ω), the balance inclines to taking καὶ ζ. κ. π. together. In 16 “every” rather than “all.” In 17 is there to be no difference caused by the anarthrous form? “To one therefore knowing how to do right, and doing [it] not, to him it is sin.”
5:1 gives the aorist with the present participle, so as to combine instant weeping with habitual howling, because of their sins and the Lord's speedy judgment. But nobody is blamed for what is so hard to express suitably. Why, however, is the last clause of 3 “have” laid up? “Ye laid up” &c. seems more concentrated and graphic. The Americans might have recalled the British Committee to their own rule; but it is hard to rid the mind of habit and prejudice; and the true form sounds somewhat harsh to an English ear. The perfects are used with such propriety in 2, 3, and 4, that it is idle to suppose the aorist is used in vain between them. So in 5 it should be “Luxuriously ye lived on the earth and indulged yourselves; ye nourished...condemned...killed,” &c. All is summed up conclusively in the view of the writer; who nevertheless guards against possible misuse by his transition to the present in the closing words, “he doth not resist you.” (Compare also ver. 7-10). Bentley's conjecture (Philippians Lips I. 34) of ο κς, or ὁ Κύριος, for ούκ was as unworthy as needless. In 16 “A righteous man's supplication” is sufficient and exact. In 20 it seems arbitrary to omit in the margin a notice of “his” soul, supported as it is by א A P more than half a dozen cursives, and all the ancient versions save Sah. Arm. of Zohrab, and adopted by, and two such editors as Lachmann, and Tischendorf in his last and eighth edition. Neither Erasmus nor Alford nor Compl., neither Stephens nor Beza nor the Elzevirs read the pronoun, but Colimeus does.